If you've never seen that old 80's slapstick classic, Johnny Dangerously, this post will not make any sense. Than again, it's done for no other purpose than to try and drive some traffic to default user's website.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

The fairness of Men's role in society, men's behavior and characteristics that women find attractive, and diet and nutrition -- all three of these topics have been the subject of a considerable amount of propaganda, memes, lies, and shibboleths designed and promulgated by our mass media and educational institutions...all designed to mislead we the sheeple into behaving in ways that lead to tremendous profits for a wide variety of industries.

Our dysfunctional relationships, our nutrient poor diets and the ill mental, spiritual and physical health that results from them are literal niche markets that have proven to be very profitable indeed.

Many a men's right's blogger and commenter has made note of the efforts of Western society to emasculate and feminize society as a whole...to promote feminine behavior in men.

It just so happens that following the conventional dietary wisdom plays so perfectly into this agenda.

See, on a basic, physiological level, what is the primary difference in male and female biology? When you get right down to it, it's testosterone.

And the standard low-fat, no-red meat, low cholesterol, plant-based diet that we are all supposedly should be eating to have good health? It's a diet that is primarily instrumental in reducing the bodies production of testosterone.

Saturated fat, and cholesterol are primary building blocks for the bodies production of testosterone.

To put it simply, a low-fat diet, is a low-T diet.

Speaking for myself, It's been 4 years now since I've adopted a high-protein, high-fat diet - I like to call it a Nutrient Dense, Real Food diet, after nearly a decade of low-fat, non-fat, semi-vegetarian, whole grain diet, all through my 20's and early 30's. That diet saw me increasingly getting fatter (at my worst, I was 40 lbs. overweight), and in hindsight, I now realize I had a gradually decreasing libido.

Eating too many plant foods and not enough animal foods was turning me into an Herb.

After a few years of eating paleo, I've discovered that I now have a constant, raging libido of a caveman ready to club the nearest fertile female and drag her away for some carnal savagery. I haven't felt like this since I was 15 years old and first starting dating, and could think of nothing else but sex, drugs, sex, rock-n-roll, and sex. One thing about being older though, while my libido has been rejuvenated by my diet, you don't get the bothersome, can't-control effects like involuntary erections, like you do when you first pass through puberty.

But it turns out that testosterone is linked to far more than just your libido.

Quality fat will increase your low testosterone levels. When I say quality fat, I'm not talking about soy, corn, or cotton seed oils in a clear plastic bottles sitting on the grocery store shelf. As a matter of fact, I'm not talking about polyunsaturated oils at all.
Poly fats will reduce your testosterone levels!
I'm talking about mono fats from olives and avocados, and saturated fat from beef and egg yolks.
Yup, I'm talking old school bodybuilder food!
In his younger days, Jack Lalanne almost choked to death drinking cows blood. It coagulated in his throat on the way down, and just about sent him down the river.Now, you don't need to take it that far, not even close. All I ask is that you start eating REAL food.
Need some examples?

Note that the entire low-fat/non-fat, avoid saturated fat conventional wisdom also makes people use more polyunsaturated fats like canola, corn, and soy oils, and eat a lot less saturated fats like butter, lard and tallow.

Men like Armand Tanny, John Grimek, and Vince Gironda.
These pioneers of the muscle game didn't keep a bottle of testosterone cypionate in the medicine cabinet.They didn't rely on fractioned, low-fat, over-processed foods either.
Vince shunned the primitive soy-based protein powders of the day, and got his aminos the way mother nature intended....From food!
He believed a large percentage of your daily food intake should be consumed in a raw, natural state.
His go-to guys were steak tartar, whole eggs, and raw milk.
Yup, Vince, John, Armand, and most of the other muscle men of that era ate what I like to call "man food."
Food that real men consumed, before fat phobia took over our collective conscious in the late 70s and early 80s.
As a matter of fact, these men embraced fat, from clean, animal-based sources, and for good reason.
For one, fat is good for you!
Surprised? More on that later…Second, fat, especially saturated fat, is vital for optimal Testosterone Production.Studies have shown conclusively, that male vegetarians, who typically consume very little saturated fat, have considerably lower levels of testosterone compared to non vegetarians.

In 2005 JS Volek conducted a study titled, The case for not restricting saturated fat on a low carbohydrate diet.

This research compared the dietary records of several men involved in weight training.
The authors found significant correlations between testosterone levels and total and saturated fat intake among men with a history of at least one year of weight training.

Testosterone is the key hormone that defines your masculinity. The fats and proteins that you eat (or don't eat) will determine the levels of testosterone your body produces.

No wonder the same corporate mass media that constantly seeks to emasculate the Western Male by degrading masculinity, and constantly portraying male role models as weak, effeminate, pussy whipped and dominated by women is the same entities promoting a low-fat, plant based (i.e. polyunsaturated fat) diet as optimal!

Apparently, some feminists and their mangina politicians passed some law 10 years ago that gave preference to women owned businesses in certain industries when bidding for Federal Contracts. This law has basically not been used or enforced since it was passed...but now that we are in the midst of the Great Depression 2.0, and more men than women have been getting laid off, NOW the Federal Government decides is the perfect time to resurrect this affirmative action legislation.

The rule, which was first proposed by Congress in 2000 but only published in the Federal Register last week, aims to increase the amount of federal contracting dollars that go to businesses that are at least 51 percent owned by women in 83 industries in which women were found to be underrepresented — everything from construction to accounting to public relations. The agency has 120 days from the date of publication to implement the new rule

Oh, but it gets worse than a simple case of affirmative action...

The new rule puts some teeth in the regulations, putting women-owned businesses on similar footing as service-disabled veteran-owned businesses and businesses that participate in the SBA’s 8(a) business-development program, which enjoy the benefits of bidding for contracts that are set aside for their specific programs.

Let's get this straight....

...if you're a male who went to fight for this country in one of the various wars for the US Military, and got a limb blown off or lost your sight or some other horrific war injury...and you come home and start a business, you will be able to receive equal preference under this program...equal to other American business owners who are designated for this legislation simply because they were born with a vagina and whom also own a business?!?!

EQUALITY BABY!!!!

“This new ruling is going to be substantial in that it will mean something,” Downs said.

Oh it will mean something alright...it means the only way a man can have an equal opportunity to receive preference under this new regulation like a woman, will be to get disabled while fighting for our Cuntry.

Words fail me at the moment.

Notable Commentary from the Original Post

MenZo October 17, 2010 at 06:40:

wow….. just… wow

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 27 {Thumb down} 0

Anonymous age 68 October 17, 2010 at 07:21:

The attack on men will never stop until one of two things happens. First, the men of this nation grow a pair and stand up for their civil; legal; human; and constitutional rights. This will never happen.

Or, the Huns come in and do a hard reset.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 49 {Thumb down} 1

Uncle Elmer October 17, 2010 at 07:29:

It’s standard practice for men to name their wives as president/owner of their small business to take advantage of this. If you’re fishing in federal contract waters it’s just another loophole to check, just like taxes.

We often hear about the great tide of “women-owned businesses” and “entrepreneurs” but I think much of it is based on this lie.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 45 {Thumb down} 1

Joe October 17, 2010 at 08:35:

I was working at a public university about 12-15 years ago when I first found out about this. One of the project managers told me that minority and women owned businesses got preferences over white male owned businesses so a lot of guys would put their business in the wife’s name to get the advantage. It’s high time us plain ol’ white guys abandoned white guilt and start behaving like a tribe when the primitive cultures around us make it necessary.

As far as men not standing up for themselves, I’m sure many won’t but others will. I think one of the first steps is the abandonment of multiculturalism. This is happening somewhat in Europe where white europeans are getting fed up with muslims. I think that most of the time catholic and protestant cultures really don’t belong together. There is a fundamental difference between the type of people who embrace the church of rome and those who don’t. To me, it’s the same basic difference that exists between a subject and a citizen.

At some point some people are gonna grow up and abandon the retarded idea that all types of people can and should live together. This is plain as day where I work. In my industry/location a very disproportionate part of management is from a particular ethnic group. There appear to be a few reasons. Firstly, they’re shamelessly tribal and show preferences to each other more than other groups and if anyone says anything they play the victim, it’s disgusting. Secondly, they’re very aggressive when it comes to pursuing positions of authority. This is clearly cultural. The problem is that they aren’t the least bit interested in doing the mundane management tasks that come with these positions. They also don’t value competence, they just want to be the boss of as many people as possible. They mess things up bad most of the time.

One thing that is obvious to me is that groups of people that have widely varying levels of aggression and tribalism don’t do well together. You don’t have to be smart to recognize this, you just need the balls to point out the obvious. The more aggressive/tribal group will end up very overrepresented in power positions. This happens despite their frequent inability or lack of interest in bearing the responsibility that comes with the position. The less aggressive group may be the more capable of running a successful organization but they end up doing all the grunt work and existing in very unmotivating dead-end situations.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 35 {Thumb down} 13

Snark October 17, 2010 at 08:52:

They are using crisis to bolster their position. Lenin suggested this policy regarding the First World War.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 21 {Thumb down} 0

Keyster October 17, 2010 at 08:55:

Not to distract from the main point, but yes its true; a “female owned business” that might exploit this is highly likely to be a business owned and operated by men, that use a “trusted” female as a proxy. Typically a wife who has little if anything to do with day to day operations. This is well known and a bit of a joke in business circles that deal with the federal and many state governments.

Not to say there aren’t true female owned and operated businesses, but its highly unlikely that the federal government would need to hire a PR or accounting firm. There simply aren’t that many truely female owned and operated businesses to choose from, that the federal government would or could do business with. That’s the reality these “equality” bureaucrats fail to comprehend. Yet they’ll wrap themselves around the axle trying to find several as “TOKENS”, just to demonstrate that the program is working.

Our tax dollars at work, just to make people feel less guilty and more righteous about themselves. It has little to do with competence or actual ability to perform as required. It’s about feelings.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 20 {Thumb down} 1

Herbal Essence October 17, 2010 at 09:50:

Joe-

The reality is, a small minority of super-powerful (mostly) white males is using Feminism and other PC bullshit to undercut their only real competition – other males. As many smart men have pointed out, women are the knives the ruling class uses to stab men in the back.

The real enemy is not minorities, gays, or even most women. They’re just tools acting out an agenda.

I have no problem with notions of tribalism. It can be healthy. But that doesn’t mean that every white male is on our side, or every woman/non-white is against us. It’s much more complicated than that. Especially when taking into account that white males make up the vast majority of feminism-enabling white knights.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 40 {Thumb down} 6

barbarossaa October 17, 2010 at 09:52:

yes and it will continue on like this.

i say this in the most serious way possible.

MEN they will not rest until they completely dominate you. if you do not allow yourselves to be dominated, they will seek to destroy you. Its that simple

until men start coming to this conclusion in large numbers they will be unable to defend against misandry, and thus incapable of defending themselves.

the more you try to serve the machine, by for example fighting in wars to defend it, the more they will hate you for being stupid enough to willingly serve in the demise of your own genders self worth and respect.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
Anti Idiocy October 17, 2010 at 10:33

@ Uncle Elmer: “It’s standard practice for men to name their wives as president/owner of their small business to take advantage of this.”

I knew a man, a business contact, who lost his business in divorce as a result of doing this. Shortly after the divorce settlement, his wife just shut the business down. He was left with none of it.

This might, in some cases, be a good game to play, but I’d want to be damn sure of the legalities beforehand.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 25 {Thumb down} 0

Anti Idiocy October 17, 2010 at 10:33:

@ Uncle Elmer: “It’s standard practice for men to name their wives as president/owner of their small business to take advantage of this.”

I knew a man, a business contact, who lost his business in divorce as a result of doing this. Shortly after the divorce settlement, his wife just shut the business down. He was left with none of it.

This might, in some cases, be a good game to play, but I’d want to be damn sure of the legalities beforehand.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 25 {Thumb down} 0

njartist49 October 17, 2010 at 10:43

Anon 68:
“Or, the Huns come in and do a hard reset.”

Most likely to happen.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 18 {Thumb down} 0

misterb October 17, 2010 at 12:54:

It’s a dangerous game that feminists and the le femmes are playing dangerous game. With economics and the lives. In truth they don’t care, or practically don’t even know what the hell they’re doing.

Passing the feel good laws.

From the looks of it, they’re going to enforced that stupid law. Actually they are enforcing it.

Speaking as an aboriginal man in Canadian north, I noted that he (the white man) needed to ground himself. Time after time, his traditions were trashed by his own brethren of the same colour. In truth, he’ll have to rebuild his traditions and restore his honour.

As man of different background, I noted that people of other colours have problems with white people. In loose translation, other people have this supremacist attitude toward others.

Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 13 {Thumb down} 1

misterb October 17, 2010 at 14:11:

There’s no such thing as equality.

The unions were originally meant to provide the workers loose protection. Basic protection from their employers, so they don’t whack their employees. In pre-60 eras, during and after the great depression. Sweat shops were not that uncommon. In fact they exploited immigrants coming to the US and Canada.

From the 1990s to 2000, the unions have become the worthless behemoth shadow of its former self.

Now skip to the present. After the idiots and crybabies had gotten their way. In Canada, we have heterosexual men discriminatory bills. catering to the hateful gay people, idiots, murders, douche bags and so forth.

An honest man is taxed to death by the government. And whatever little dignity people have left on Indian reserves is taken away.

I hate to break this to you. Gay people are themselves the feminists, who join the other she demons, in the grass they graze. aka we men are the grass that the females and gays graze upon.

misterb aka misterbastard

Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 9 {Thumb down} 1

codebuster October 17, 2010 at 19:25:

I’m sure most of us get it how insane this is. For those who don’t…

Women have the escape-hatch of stay-at-home mom. The role of stay-at-home mom defines purpose, dignity and direction (for those women who accept their responsibilities). So where many provided-for women are in a position to regard work as something akin to a hobby – something to do if they like, something to do if their fancy takes them, someplace to while away the hours, someplace to gossip with friends, they still get first priority over men, for whom work defines purpose, dignity and direction, and for whom not working is not an option.

God help us. This is truly primitive. Not even Russian communism could beat this insanity – their efforts to bring women into the workforce had less to do with the women-are-oppressed fairy-tale than it did with making use of able-bodied human resources in supporting the economy. There is no voodoo-practicing tribe of headhunters, no tribe of hunter-gatherers or Cro-Magnons, no village of third-world peasants that would buy into this garbage. They would recognize it for what it is – tyranny, and they would kill, pillage and rape until there was nothing left.

Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 9 {Thumb down} 0

Indomitable Thoughts October 17, 2010 at 20:35:

Women are always trying to paint themselves as victims. That picture shows it in graphic detail that’s not so obvious at first– affirmative action is making it so their “plight” has the same priority as someone who got his legs blown off in Iraq. Hell, I bet the whole combat veterans thing was just thrown in, with the priority being the “at least 51% women owned” businesses thing. It shows how pampered and privileged women are in today’s society.

Cue back to the whole Alte/Rob argument a few stories back. It seems like almost every woman has some kind of abuse story that she willingly dishes out to try and garner sympathy and bootlicking from men. Disgusting. Disgusting how women try to shame and manipulate men like this.

We’ve been thoroughly emasculated, folks. Thoroughly emasculated.

Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 13 {Thumb down} 0

Indomitable Thoughts October 17, 2010 at 20:40:

If a man complains about his (often legitimately shitty) lot in life, he’s told to “man up” and “take it like a man” from both bootlickers and women.

On the other hand, if a woman complains about her lot in life, she’s given support from women, manginas, and the government.

This is a double standard that feminism aims to amplify, and amplify, and amplify…they simply don’t give a fuck about anything but giving women the upper hand at the expense of basically everyone else. And manginas back them up, either walking straight into the oven, or fucking over other men so they can have sex with them.

Like or Dislike: {Thumb up} 9 {Thumb down} 0

Nemo October 18, 2010 at 12:10:

This sort of law actually *increases* racism, sexism, nationalism, or whatever else the government claims that it is trying to cure.

It’s one thing to make it illegal to discriminate. It’s entirely different to ORDER the government to discriminate against whatever groups it happens to dislike at the moment.

In the US, there are “protected classes” listed in human resources guidelines. Women, gays, and non-whites are protected. Most East Asians and Jews are also tossed in with “whites” – they have been able to achieve economic success without the aid of government, so they are now “unprotected”.

These classes are the first to be hired and the last to be fired, according to HR guidelines. A “protected” person who is laid off can sue their employer and probably win some money. An “unprotected” employee can not. Therefore, from a legal point of view, the unprotected employees are the first to go and the protected employees are the last to go.

About 80% of all job losses in the US during the recession have been men, and this is a major factor in creating that 4:1 sex ratio among the newly unemployed.

People who previously thought of themselves as full citizens of the United States are now realizing that if they are white, East Asian, or Jewish they are demoted to second class citizens. If they are straight, they are demoted to third class citizens. If they are men, they are demoted to fourth class citizens.

All in the name of “equality”.

We are resurrecting the medieval idea of “High Justice” for the nobles and “Low Justice” for the serfs, and “white” heterosexual men are the new serfs.

The net effect of all of this is to cause the groups that are now being “deselected” by the government to self-identify themselves not as full citizens, but as members of a minority group that is oppressed by the government.

Congratulations, Washington, you’ve just made everyone think of themselves as a member of an oppressed minority group instead of a citizen of the USA.

To repeat, this sort of law actually *increases* racism, sexism, nationalism, or whatever else the government claims that it is trying to cure.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

One thing about the ever increasing number of blogs that I discover are worthy of reading and contain substantial content, is that I often find entries that are older, and have had excellent commentary participation, but I'm too late to join in on. But I can still blog about it myself...

He had discovered a blog entitled Frivolous Divorce, ostensibly written by an older woman who had divorced her husband 7 years prior and is now living a very lonely life of reflection and regret. This website would be a great, great resource to point to if you ever have an older friend or family member that is contemplating divorcing for frivolous reasons. At the very least, it could cause someone to have second thoughts. It's concise prose offers quite the contrast to the kind of pro-divorce propaganda and influences that permeates our society.

It's actually not a very extensive blog and all of it's entries can be read in a single sitting. If it's message actually reaches even one person considering a frivolous divorce, this ladies self-inflicted loneliness and misery can serve as a useful, cautionary tale.

Some choice excerpts:

You are about to commit something like a murder. Not a murder, but something like a murder. It will include death (the death of your family), grieving victims (your spouse and children, and eventually you), shame (hopefully you will be very ashamed one day), humiliation (your children will be embarrassed by your behavior and your spouse will be humiliated by the rejection), financial devastation (for everyone), and the intrusion of the State into the personal details of your life.

This site is not intended for victims of adultery, abuse, or other serious issues that may cause people to divorce. Rather, it is intended for those whose spouses have done nothing wrong and do not deserve to have their lives destroyed. It is intended for the frivolous.

Since we know that 70+% of all divorces are filed by women, and most are admittedly not due to infidelity and/or abuse, I don't think it's a stretch to say that most divorces are in fact frivolous.

My husband was an easy-going, simple man. He never complained about anything, helped with anything when asked, worked hard and made an above average living, didn’t cheat on me, didn’t drink, never hit me, and was a loving father.

His faults were many: sleeping too much, clowning around too much, being too interested in sports, not knowing how to cook, not remembering the names of his childrens’ teachers, not getting home before 6 pm because of his 2-hour commute, not liking poetry and art, and other heinous offenses. All deserving of divorce, right?

The truth is that he endured years and years of my contempt, grinding criticism, big mouth, and deep character defects and he loved me in spite of it.

You see, he didn’t demand perfection like I did. He was just there for me through the good and the bad, doing what a real husband does. Too bad he didn’t have a real wife.

Damn. The inferences to be drawn from this to those of us who have taken the red pill are quite clear:

He was a good man...but he was boring. She grew to despise him for his utter predictability. She in turn, became a nagging, grumpy bitch...and he took it. In short, he became an AMC.

Now, it looks as if this man is in a good place -- happily re-married and successful -- while his ex-wife is suffering from loneliness, unemployment and poverty, 7 years after their divorce.

Nevertheless, the man literally ALLOWED her to convince herself that destroying their family was justified, because he put up with her ungrateful and caustic nagging and bitchiness. Maybe he no longer cared after awhile. But married men should take note: allowing your wife to act like this unopposed, will only foster more of the same. Nip that bad behavior in the bud. As Athol puts it, follow the second date rule.

Assuming your wife displays some sort of highly negative behavior (read as "craz-ee biatch") , a good rule of thumb is The Second Date Rule...

If what she just did happened on the second date, would there have been a third date?

If the answer is "no", it's probably best to say something about it and not just suck it up for the rest of your marriage. The behavior will likely continue without it being addressed.

Women do respond positively to men willing to not put up with them being venomous screechtards. Both in general relationship terms and sexual. Just not at first.

His failure to stand up to her increasing nagging, combined with all of the influences of a culture immersed in misandry and entitlement that brainwashes women into being dissatisfied with their lives of Patriarchal oppression, and that divorce from the boring beta husband would leads to life of exhilarating freedom, she found out too late that real life is not like the glamorous Follywood portrayals of middle aged divorcees running off to fly around the world to be seduced by tall, dark foreigners with sexy accents.

You think your life is going to get better after your divorce, not worse. Fun times with new friends or your new love. But you aren’t thinking about failure — failure to make new friends, failure to find love, failure of old relationships as people discard you. Yes, people will discard you for various reasons. You don’t believe it, but you will when it happens to you. And you will deserve it; after all, you discarded your spouse.

Wonder if Elizabeth Gilbert will ever have to face this harsh lesson? Supposedly she was forced to get married to her Brazilian lover so he could legally emigrate to the US. How long will it be before her rapidly fading looks and once her new husband's permanent residency status is affirmed, will she find out what it's like to be discarded herself? Just as Roissy accurately predicted that eventually it would come out that Ashton Kutcher would eventually be discovered unfaithful to Demi Moore with younger, hotter women, so too do I believe Gilbert's Brazilian "sweetheart" will eventually leave her...I just hope it gets as much publicity as her god awful book and movie did.

The Frivolous Divorce blogger realized the ugly truth, much to late...

Ladies, if you are over 40, no matter how well you take care of yourself, you are not very attractive to men. Men of shallow character want young women and no amount of time in the gym or under the plastic surgeon’s knife is going to fool anyone. Men of high character will run from a frivolous woman who destroyed her family.

Dalrock questions if this is actually written by a real woman. Another commenter logged on to her blog and stated outright that he did not believe that it was written by a woman...that such woman are incapable of self-assessment, introspection and avoiding the mesmerizing trance of the rationalization hamster that is an integral part of all women's psyche. I believe though that it is (and not just because the genderanalyzer gave it an 84% chance it was written by a woman...) because the next sentence she wrote after that last quote:

Men, you have an advantage when it comes to looking good as you age, but you shouldn’t overestimate that advantage. It doesn’t amount to much; you don’t look good, either, after 40.

She still hasn't figured out that looks is only a part of the attraction equation for men, whereas it is the most substantial part of attraction for women.

Many people in Men's Rights/Gender Realist sector of the internet develop a caricature view of the female gender...because there are now so many bad examples from which to observe in today's Brave New World Order. But I know of more than a few women in my own sphere of family and friends who have done things they have come to regret, and have arrived at quite logical and rational conclusions regarding their mistakes and have faced them fully and honestly, and have not tried to justify or rationalize their guilt away.

It's not impossible guys...just improbable. At least in this respect, NAWALT.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Most people are at least minimally aware of the way in which carbohydrates trigger a spike in the blood sugar shortly after being eaten, which contributes to storing fat tissue and eventually leading to diseases like diabetes and heart disease over time. The big culprits most people are aware of are sugars and refined carbohydrates...white flour, white pasta etc.

But instead of recommending that people simply cut out grain-based starches from their diet, the conventional wisdom says to merely replace those refined grain feed and replace it with whole grain feed. Let's look at what the USDA and their high-carb pyramid says about this:

Why is it important to eat grains, especially whole grains?
Eating grains, especially whole grains, provides health benefits. People who eat whole grains as part of a healthy diet have a reduced risk of some chronic diseases. Grains provide many nutrients that are vital for the health and maintenance of our bodies.

The USDA...the regulatory agency who literally tells the nation what it should be eating, has former Big Agri-Business Corporation Executives appointed to run it...you know the corporations who's entire business is growing, harvesting, processing and selling grains...they would never lie about the nutritional effects of their primary products, now would they?

Of course not! Our US Department of Agriculture wants to ensure that all of the Sheeple are fed a steady diet of whole grain feed....

...but I digress.

The main point here? The conventional wisdom (i.e. cultural indoctrination programming) tells us to eat whole grain to avoid problems with weight gain and heart disease. It turns out that while whole grain foods may not make you as fat as refined and enriched grain foods...they have a whole host of other problems associated with them, problems that may be worse than simply making you overweight.

This problem is mineral absorption....and that whole grain fiber may actually contribute to colon cancer...not prevent it, as most high-fiber processed foodstuffs regularly claim on their labels.

The fiber hypothesis was based on the fact that an increase in dietary fiber moved food through the gut faster. However, all the nutrients in food are absorbed through the gut wall and this takes time. If the food travels through faster, there is less time for its absorption and consequently less is absorbed. Because of this, all fiber, whether it is from fruit, vegetables or cereals, inhibits the absorption of such nutrients as zinc, iron, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, energy, proteins, fats and vitamins A, D, E and K. Now this doesn't matter too much if you eat a good nutrient-dense diet which contains plenty of these nutrients. But there is another problem with cereal fibre (bran): its phytate content.

In 1992 Professor Harold Sandsted, its Editor-in-Chief, noted that:

'"The evidence seems overwhelming that high intakes of fiber sources that are also rich in phytate can have adverse effects on mineral nutrition of humans . . . In view of the data, it appears that some health promoters who suggest that [we] should consume 30-35 g dietary fiber daily either have not done their homework or have simply ignored carefully done research on this topic."

What he was talking about was the phytic acid that cereals, soya and other legumes have in their husks. It is well known that by this mechanism wholegrain cereals decrease the absorption of minerals and that this leads to a variety of deficiency diseases in both developed and undeveloped countries.

The minerals mostly affected by phytic acid are calcium, iron and zinc. For example, subjects absorbed more iron from white bread than from wholemeal bread even though their intakes of iron were 50% higher with the wholemeal bread. And while white bread must have added calcium, the law does not require it of wholemeal bread.

Bran fiber has also been shown to cause fecal losses, and what the medical profession calls 'negative balances', of calcium, iron, zinc, phosphorus, nitrogen, fats, fatty acids and sterols. A negative balance is where more is lost from the body than is absorbed. What this means is that bran causesa loss of these nutrients from your body.

So while refined grains may cause you to store fat and promote diabetes, whole grain carbohydrates may actually cause you to lose weight...but also contribute to severe nutritional deficiencies over time.

The majority of medical doctors in the United States practice medicine “by the book.” This means a strict adherence to established clinical guidelines and standards of care in order to insulate themselves from malpractice lawsuits. Unfortunately for patients, doctors are taught to recommend fiber not because it is good for them, but because it benefits those who wrote “the book.”

Ahhhh, this is precisely why Doctor's give out a whole host of just plain wrong advice when it comes to diet and nutrition.

In essence, the recommendation to use fiber for constipation is a widespread cover up of the side-effects of antibiotics, dental amalgams, and most other prescription drugs. Medical doctors themselves are aren’t involved in this unintentional cover up, and they are just as much victims as anyone who follows this advice, because doctors also consume fiber themselves, and insist their families do the same.

Pharmaceutical companies in the United States control almost all aspects of medical education, either directly, by publishing references, textbooks, and curriculum for continuous education courses as well as designing and administering licensing exams, or indirectly, by sponsoring the teaching faculties of medical schools. Their interests shape doctors’ thinking and treatments.

And that’s even before spending enormous amounts of money for all forms of advertising to promote their views on radio, television, and in printed publications.

In turn, doctors recommend fiber for constipation because that is what is written up in all medical references and textbooks, even though every single piece of independent research states emphatically:

— Fiber causes constipation and related colorectal disorders.

— Fiber doesn’t relieve constipation or improves motility.

— Fiber is squarely behind colorectal cancer

In summary, the difference between eating a diet high in "fiber" - that is, whole grain fiber, may actually prevent you from experiencing weight gain...because the bran in the whole grain may prevent your gut from digesting the carbohydrate in the grain quickly - but it will also lead to malabsorption of minerals and eventual nutritional deficiencies. Long term nutiritional deficiencies may actually lead to more health problems than simple weight problems and diabetes (not that those aren't bad enough.)

Better to just not eat grains....but on the occasion that you actually do? Don't eat the "whole grain" option thinking that it's actually better for you. It's not.

Refined or whole, grains have a whole lot of potential problems for your health if make them a regular part of your diet. It's not just phytates and carbohydrate load you have to worry about...glutens and lectins are no picnic either.

In conclusion, I think the following paragraph from gutsense.org bears reiterating, because applies to a whole host of other diet and health related issues:

Pharmaceutical companies in the United States control almost all aspects of medical education, either directly, by publishing references, textbooks, and curriculum for continuous education courses as well as designing and administering licensing exams, or indirectly, by sponsoring the teaching faculties of medical schools. Their interests shape doctors’ thinking and treatments.

And that’s even before spending enormous amounts of money for all forms of advertising to promote their views on radio, television, and in printed publications.

Indeed, this is precisely why I have an entire series of blog posts called "Red pill realities dispelling blue bill delusions." Because the blue pills are what the Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Corporations and their appointed stooges in the USDA and FDA have been handing out for quite some time now. Those blue pills are lucrative profits for their bottom lines, but sold at the expense of our health.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Many folks don't get GBFM's schtick. Some people mistake his adderall and ritalin influenced prose to be meaningless trolling.

Than he'll go ahead and post the sources for his musings. The substance of his muse is substantial. His latest posting at Roissy's is a tour de force of quotations throughout history regarding the evils of fiat currency.

Of the innumerable evils which usually brings the decadence of kingdoms, principalities, and republics, the four greatest are, in my opinion: war, immorality, infertility of the land, and the debasement of money. For the first three, the evidence is obvious. But for the fourth, which concerns money, except for a few men of intellect, few people ever see it. Why? Because it is not in one fell swoop, but gradually, by a somewhat latent character, it ruins the state. –Copernicus

If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. –Thomas Alva Edison

Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice. –George Washington

No state shall emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, coin money. –Article One, Section Ten, United States Constitution

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. — Frederic Bastiat, The Law

Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money. –Daniel Webster

You have to choose [as a voter] between trusting to the natural stability of gold and the natural stability of the honesty and intelligence of the members of the Government. And, with due respect for these gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the Capitalist system lasts, to vote for gold. –George Bernard Shaw

The directors of such companies (joint-stock corporations), however, being the managers rather of other people’s money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own …. Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less in the management of the affairs of such a company? –Adam Smith, The Wealth on Nations, 1776

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. –Thoms Jefferson in 1802 in a letter to then Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin

Fair dealing leads to greater profit in the end. –Homer’s Odyssey

Thou shalt not steal. –Moses, Exodus

The boom produces impoverishment. But still more disastrous are its moral ravages. It makes people despondent and dispirited. The more optimistic they were under the illusory prosperity of the boom, the greater is their despair and their feeling of frustration. –Ludwig von Mises

The authors of the Constitution were very much aware of the dangers of inflation and the need for commodity money. Destruction of the continental dollar was vivid in their minds. The journals of the Continental Congress noted that “paper currency… is multiplied beyond the rules of good policy. No truth being more evident, than that where the quantity of money. . . exceeds what is useful as a medium of commerce, its comparative value must be proportionately reduced.” Further, inflations “tend to the depravity of morals, and decay of the public faith, injustice to individuals, and the destruction of the honor, safety, and independence of the United States.” –R. Paul, End The Fed, The Constitutional Case, p. 165

If you are in debt, you are a slave to that debt. –Benjamin Franklin

The second vice is lying, the first is running in debt. . . Lying rides upon debt’s back. –Benjamin Franklin

Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value—zero. —Voltaire

The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists. –Ernest Hemingway

If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper, it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash. –George Washington

To emit an unfunded paper as the sign of value ought not to continue a formal part of the Constitution, nor even hereafter to be employed; being, in its nature, pregnant with abuses, and liable to be made the engine of imposition and fraud; holding out temptations equally pernicious to the integrity of government and to the morals of the people. –Alexander Hamilton

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. This issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations which already dare to challenge our Government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. –Thomas Jefferson

The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. –John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it came, where it went – 1975, p15

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard. –Alan Greenspan, Gold and Economic Freedom

The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government … are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it. –Andrew Jackson

I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country. –Andrew Jackson

Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. –Andrew Jackson

The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. –John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it came, where it went – 1975, p29

Is there any reason why the American people should be taxed to guarantee the debts of banks, any more than they should be taxed to guarantee the debts of other institutions, including merchants, the industries, and the mills of the country? –Senator Carter Glass,Author of the Banking Act of 1933

I see in the near future a crisis approach which unnerves me and cause me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations (of banking) have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic destroyed. –Abraham Lincoln

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. –James Madison

All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation. –John Adams

The gold standard has one tremendous virtue: the quantity of the money supply, under the gold standard, is independent of the policies of governments and political parties. This is its advantage. It is a form of protection against spendthrift governments. . . The gold standard did not collapse. Governments abolished it in order to pave the way for inflation. The whole grim apparatus of oppression and coercion, policemen, customs guards, penal courts, prisons, in some countries even executioners, had to be put into action in order to destroy the gold standard. –Ludwig von Mises

I’ll tell you what I think about the way
This city treats her soundest men today;
By a coincidence more sad than funny,
It’s very like the way we treat our money.
The noble silver drachma that of old we were
So proud of, and the recent gold coins that
Rang true, clean-stamped and worth their weight
Throughout the world, have ceased to circulate.
Instead the purses of Athenian shoppers
Are full of shoddy silver-plated coppers
Just so, when men are needed by the nation,
The best have been withdrawn from circulation.
—Aristophanes, The Frogs, 400 BC

Give me control of a nation’s currency and I care not who makes the laws. –Baron Rothschild

With the exception only of the period of the gold standard, practically all governments of history have used their exclusive power to issue money to defraud and plunder the people. –F.A. Hayek

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalistic System was to debauch the currency. . . Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose. –John Maynard Keynes

We are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor silver; no sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors and a ruined people. –Daniel Webster, speech in the Senate, 1833

You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out. –Daniel Webster (upon evicting from the Oval Office a delegation of international bankers discussing the Bank Renewal Bill, 1832)

In short, Fiat currency gives the people who control the printing press to create it, the power to butthex society and desoul us all by enslaving us into debt serfdom.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Dalrock wrote about the same topic I did last year while watching NFL Football this past Sunday: October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and the NFL is a full fledged partner for the effort to raise the level of awareness in we the sheeple about this common disease.

When I turned on the games this past Sunday, and I saw all the pink on the players uniforms, all over the field and on the referee uniforms, all the former arguments that have been put forth in the man-o-sphere regarding the whole Breast Cancer Awareness vs. Prostate Cancer Awareness flitted through my mind. But this time I thought a little bit deeper on the topic, and came up with a hypothesis as to why Breast Cancer gets so much airplay and media exposure, whereas Prostate Cancer gets the finger...

...after a little bit of ruminating, I came to a stark realization – the real reason why the NFL and the rest of Western society has such a strong socio-political-cultural push to “raise awareness” for breast cancer, and it goes back to the oldest reason in the book: $$$.

Prostate cancer “awareness” – Man makes a checkup with his normal practitioner, who than shoves his finger up the man’s ass to feel the prostate.
Breast cancer “awareness” – Woman makes a yearly appointment with a highly expensive mammogram machine that costs the hospital or Private Practitioner a nice sum of money. They have to pay a trained technician to operate the machine, etc.
Couple this with a current system in which the health care provider bills an insurance company and/or a government program like Medicare, and you soon realize that a mammogram is probably 10 – 100 times more profitable a procedure to bill for than a prostate exam.
Also, it’s far easier to convince the masses of women that they need to get their breasts examined once a year, than it is to convince the masses of men (who are typically way less likely to go to the Doctor’s for ANY reason in the first place,) to go have their doctor shove their finger up their ass once a year.

Of course, it certainly ties into the overall feminization of everything in our mass media culture…the preceding idea is not mutually exclusive from that overall trend. But I think it is an important point than simply writing off as mass media and pop culture misandry.

Nevertheless, I still believe Breast Cancer Awareness is a worthy campaign, and I'd like to contribute to the cause....and once again help raise awareness on one aspect that never seems to get any kind of mainstream exposure:

That's right ladies....if you have had one or more abortions, and you've never carried a pregnancy to term, you have a much greater risk of developing Breast Cancer later in life.

You never hear of this, because the Abortion industry, the cancer industry, and Feminist ideology all conspire to suppress the truth and keep you ladies thinking "it's just some tissue" being sucked out of your womb.

1. The more estrogen a woman is exposed to in her lifetime, the higher her risk for breast cancer. It is well established that estrogen is implicated in the formation of three cancers: uterine, germ cell and breast.1 Estrogen can induce cancers to form in two ways, as a genotoxin and a mitogen. A genotoxin or mutagen directly damages the DNA (causes mutations), initiating a process that leads to the formation of cancer cells. Certain natural metabolites of estrogen have been shown to cause mutations.2 A mitogen causes cells to proliferate, that is, to multiply through division (mitosis). Each a time a cell divides to form two cells, it must replicate its DNA. During replication, mutations in the form of copying errors and/or chromosomal translocations can occur, causing abnormal cells to form. These abnormal cells can go on to become cancerous. The stimulation of proliferation (mitogenesis) that estrogen causes, increases the chances that abnormal cells will grow into malignant tumors. Estrogen is so potent that it is measured in parts per trillion.

If a woman starts her menstrual cycles early, say, age nine and continues to menstruate into her late 50's, she is at higher risk for breast cancer, as she has been exposed to monthly estrogen elevations for a long period of time. This too is the science behind a recent, well-publicized study that shows that estrogen-based hormone replacement therapy increases the risk of breast cancer.3 In a similar way, birth control pills can elevate breast cancer risk.

2. The earlier a woman's breast matures from prepubescent (Type 1) and pubescent (Type 2) lobules to reproductive (Type 3) and lactation (Type 4) lobules (see diagrams), the lower her risk of breast cancer.4 Type 1 and 2 lobules are known to be where cancers arise, in the TDLUs (terminal ductal lobular units),5 whereas Type 3 and 4 lobules are mature and resistant to carcinogens. When a female child is born, she has only a small number of primitive Type 1 lobules. At puberty, when estrogen levels rise, the breast forms Type 2 lobules. It is only through the hormonal environment and length of a full term (or to at least 32 weeks) pregnancy that there is full maturation of Type 3 and 4 lobules in the breast. This maturation protects a woman and lowers her risk of breast cancer.

This is why women who undergo full term pregnancies have lower risk of breast cancer and why women who remain childless have higher risk of breast cancer. Women who give birth after age 30 are also at increased risk of breast cancer as their immature Type 1 and 2 lobules are exposed to estrogen for the many years between the time of their first menstruation until their first full term pregnancy. Abortion in women under 18 and over 30 years old carries the greatest risk: these women have the highest percentage of Type 1 lobules in their breasts.

It is the interplay of these two principles, estrogen exposure and breast lobule maturation, which accounts for the fact that abortion can lead to breast cancer. Within a few days of conception, a woman's estrogen level rises. By the end of the first trimester, estrogen levels have increased by 2000%. The estrogen stimulation that causes the multiplication of Type 1 and 2 lobules, results in sore and tender breasts early on in pregnancy. It is only after 32 weeks that a woman's breasts stop growing larger and mature into Type 3 and 4 lobules in preparation for breast-feeding.

If abortion ends a woman's pregnancy before full maturation of her breasts, she is left with an increased number of the immature Type 1 and 2 lobules. She now has a greater number of the breast lobules where cancers can arise. This causes her to be at greater risk for breast cancer. It is through this same biologic mechanism that any premature birth before 32 weeks more than doubles breast cancer risk.

Induced abortion thus increases breast cancer risk by two mechanisms. First, abortion leaves the breast with increased numbers of Type 1 and Type 2 lobules, those lobules in which cancer cells are formed, which are then exposed to more estrogen through menstrual cycles. These lobules would otherwise have been protected from cancer by maturation to Type 3 and 4 lobules, if pregnancy had gone to term. Second, the breast is exposed to high levels of estrogen during pregnancy, which can induce cancer cells to form. 6

See, I helped raise awareness...and I didn't have to wear that god awful pink to do it either.